list_collections

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds modest context about returning IDs but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or default filtering (beyond what the schema already explains). With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose, what it returns, and why (IDs for filtering). The output schema handles return structure, so the description doesn't need to elaborate further.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter 'archived' is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what's already provided. The baseline of 3 applies due to high schema description coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists all collections, defines them as folders for organizing entries, and explains the purpose of the returned IDs. This distinguishes it from get_collection, which fetches a single collection, and from other list tools for entries and tags.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: use this to enumerate all collections and obtain IDs for filtering entries. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., when to use get_collection instead), so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.